Neocon Phoenix

In Greek mythology, the phoenix is a bird that dies by fire and a new phoenix regenerates from the ashes of the old bird. Most of us remember this from somewhere, but we often forget that the fire that consumes the phoenix was built and lit by the phoenix.

Such may be the fate of the neocons, or at least their political philosophy. After the Bush Administration failed so miserably in pursuing a neocon path, it is hard to find a group of folks more reviled than neocons. Yet, John McCain has chosen Robert Kagan, a neocon par excellence, as his foreign policy advisor. McCain has hinted at more of the same in Iraq. Does he now want to start with a failed neocon team so the he can also repeat the original mistakes of the Bush team?

ctually I don't believe McCain would follow in Bush's footsteps. I think he's more intelligent than that, but I do find his adoption of the neocon philosophy to be troubling for a variety of reasons. I tend to agree (mostly) with the neocon view of the world situation, but I do not agree with their concept of using America's power to remake the world in our image.

Get Acquainted with Neocons

For those who are not familiar with the neoconservative (neocon) movement, I invite you to the following sites:

• Neo-consertive, SourceWatch give a quick rundown on the history and status of the movement.
• Neoconserviatism, Wikipedia is a much longer and very complete presentation on the movement.
• Empire Builders, Christian Science Monitor Online reports on the key neoconservatives and where they were in 2005.
• All in the Neocon Family, AlterNet is an interesting article showing that many of the top neocons are related by family or marriage.

hether the neocons are primarily responsible for the Iraq War debacle is debated. Some of the neocons who were once calling the shots now say that the Iraq War disaster was not their fault but was the result of bungled mismanagement of the war by their bosses. This implies that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al were the mismanagers and that they were not neocons.

The organization most closely associated with the neocon movement is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Founding members of PNAC included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Libby. Wolfowitz was considered the ideological leader of PNAC. Other members of note included Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams and Jeb Bush.

Neocons and Cons

Some say Cheney and Rumsfeld were never neocons but used the neocons' philosophy to further their own aims; especially Cheney in his pursuit of an imperial presidency. That's drawing a pretty fuzzy line and one I think is misleading. For all practical purposes, Cheney and Rumsfeld were neocons. Here's how I see the neocon Bush cabinet

• Cheney, VP: Definitely neocon with help from Libby.
• State: Rice; political persuasion unknown but in tune with Bush and she avoided confrontation with Rumsfeld and John Bolton
• National Security Council: Abrams, definite neocon; convicted for part in Iran-Contra Affair.
• Defense: Secretary Rumsfeld, card carrying neocon. Under Secty for Policy Doug Feith, also card carrying neocon.
• Chairman of Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle and members too many to list here.

could go on but the point is that prominent neocons had key appointments in all areas of defense and foreign policy. It is no accident that White House statements and actions have following the neocon approach almost to the letter. Whether Bush was a closet neocon, was duped by the neocons, or just liked their world view is beside the point. The point is that Bush acted like a neocon and he acted very well.

Robert Kagan, Brilliant Idealist

PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine that is, in my opinion, a top notch magazine with well-reasoned articles. I often don't agree with the articles but their quality is far above what usually passes today as Republican thinking. If you need some real news about the Iraq War, check out the Weekly Standard.

Robert Kagan, Warsaw, April 17, 2000 from Wikipedia, Robert Kagan

obert Kagan is an author of several books and writes columns for The New Republic, Policy Review (Hoover Institute), the Weekly Standard, and that venerable liberal rag (or so my ultra-conservative relative tells me) The Washington Post. He is also a foreign policy advisor on Senator McCain's campaign staff. Here is list of some Kagan writings:

• " End of Dreams, Return of History," at Real Clear Politics
• "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776," at World Affairs
• "Power and Weakness," at Policy Review, Hoover Institute

If you want a more complete taste of Kagan's brand of neoconservatism, I recommend The Return of History; and the End of Dreams, ( 2008, Knoph division of Random House, New York, NY; $19.95). Since Kagan writes very lengthy articles, you'd think this book would be huge, but it isn't. The book is short (and small page format), but extremely well written and Kagan makes a lot of good points.

The World According to Neocons

Basically, here is the neoconservative talking points, per my interpretation of Kagan:

• The U.S. is the sole remaining superpower with extensive military capabilities.
• The U.S. is a moral country, capable of leading the democratic/liberal world, and of promoting democracy throughout the world.
• The U.S. should spread democracy because democracies make the world safe for other democracies.
• Peace and the growth of democracy happened during only a brief period after the Soviet Union collapsed. This left many liberals and other misinformed folks in the U.S. and Europe believing in the "end of history" and a new world order wherein nations competed economically, not by war.
• After the short-lived peace period, Russia and China found ways to return to, or retain, autocracy and still improve the prosperity of their peoples.
• The world is now aligning into two camps: one of democracies, and one of autocrats.
• Autocrats may not like other autocrats, but they must support each other or the democracies, especially the U.S., will force democracy on countries where it wouldn't work. Autocrats often tell their people that democracy is evil mob rule. Also, autocrats want to stay in power.
• India and other democracies are aligning more with the U.S. than in earlier years. EU, finally seeing the truth as Russia controls their energy and rattles their many nuclear sabers, is also moving toward the U.S.
• The world still works on the "sovereignty of nations" principal and balance of power remains the operative policy concept.
• Muslim extremists can never be satisfied because the West cannot give them what they want.
• The proactive policies of the Bush Administration are not new. America has pursued invasions and "preventative" foreign military actions throughout its history, especially during the Cold War.
• The UN Security Council is deadlocked with roughly equal representation from autocracies and democracies, and has no power.

All the above is, I think, mostly true. But none of the above points mention any action to be taken because of this world view. And that is where I have problems with the neocons.

Neocons versus Realists

I've always considered myself in the realist foreign policy camp. I revere George F. Kennan, architect of the Cold War containment policy. I also believe Henry Kissinger was one of our most brilliant policy experts. As I read Robert Kagan, I am struck by how closely his neoconservative view comes to a realist view for the post peace dividend world. But there is a difference.

n America that pursues a realist foreign policy would promote democracy and block autocrats where it served our interests. That America would also deal with autocrats if those autocrats could also serve America's needs and interests. That America would also promote democracy but would not invade a sovereign states unless the state posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States.

he neoconservative would invade and go to war with a lot less reasons - something like Cheney's 1% doctrine wherein one can take action if there is only a 1% chance of a threat to the U.S. Kagan doesn't really address the degree to which the neoconservatives would advise aggression. And that is where we need to be concerned when neoconservatives gain power in our government. What conditions are sufficient for a neocon to go to war? You will find nothing specific in their writings but you can find indicators when you think about how the U.S. might flex its sole superpower role to promote democracy. One way is by invading or otherwise forcing regime change (sorry, regime change is a dirty word/phrase and I should have called it something else). Other ways are less warlike. We need to look at the neocon track record to discover how they might promote democracy.

Regime Change by Force

The Iraq War was badly bungled and that bungling may not be the neocons fault, but the war was started by neocons or folks who thought like neocons. If we go back a little in history, to the 1990s, we find a steadily increasing neocon drumbeat for a greater U.S. presence in the Middle East. The idea was to promote democracy, support Israel, and guarantee our oil supplies. There were many candidate countries but Iraq, once America's friend against Iran, was high on the list. Iraq was threatening the area, had a brutal dictator, and had lots of oil. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait finally marked Iraq for regime change. But American's aren't comfortable with creating democracies by force, so other reasons for war were necessary. September 11, 2001 provided the avenue, if not the answer to invading Iraq. If some insiders are to be believed, the neocons even advised invading Iraq instead of Afghanistan after 9/11. WMDs and support of terrorists became the excuse to invade Iraq. As those reasons proved false, the neocons returned to the original concept of a democratic Iraq.

This latter drive to invade Iraq when the threat was in another country is indicative of an idealist-driven agenda wherein the ideals override reality. The Iraq War has accomplished none of America's goals and has even made us less secure, jeopardized our national defense, plundered our treasury, and made us a hated sole superpower. As bad as the Iraq War is, the neocons seem ready to try it again.

do not disagree much with the neocon world view. The world remains a dangerous place and America needs to remain strong and guarded. What concerns me is when these political philosophers are put in charge of the implementation of that philosophy. These folks are idealists and as idealists, they do not respond well to the reality of facts. As idealists they are prone to seeing a world that proves their ideals rather than as it really is. I think this is how our White House saw WMD when there weren't any and saw a Saddam-terrorist connection when there wasn't any.

hey say that the neocons began as Trotskyites. Trotsky was that nice communist that opposed Stalin and was assassinated in Mexico for his troubles. But he was still a communist and he was an idealist. Lenin was an idealist. bin Laden is an idealist. Woodrow Wilson was an idealist. I think neocons are idealists. I am not fond of idealists running a country. Give me a pragmatist anytime.

McCain, if elected, might benefit from neocon advice, alongside other advice. The danger would be when the neocon advice drives foreign policy. If McCain remains as independent as his reputation has it, then I wouldn't see a problem. But he has a recent record of courting the more radical elements of the so called conservative wing of the Republican base. I'm no longer sure of his independence.

Fix Congress - Earmarks, Update

Senator John McCain is going to veto all earmarks and save us $100B annually.

Most experts use a total of between $16B and $18B for all earmarks, so I find it difficult to see how one can get $100B out of that. Even the Center for American Progress Action Fund, with their own ax to grind, estimates only $52B.

I just don't know about McCain. I haven't decided on my Presidential vote and I have always respected McCain as one of us retired military, one who has integrity, and one brave enough to buck his own party. But he sure is losing me with this apparent drive to self-destruct.

First there was walk in an Iraqi market, sans body armor, to show that Iraq was safe. It turned out to be staged, something I would expect from Clinton but not McCain. Then came his mistaking Sunnis for Shiites in a speech about progress in the Iraq War. You simply cannot understand even the basics about Iraq (or all of the Middle East for that matter) if you can't tell a Sunni from a Shiite. But that was not the only gaffe on Iraq, just the most blatant.

Is my hero going senile? More likely it's his handlers. If they come from the RNC training camp, then I don't hold much hope for McCain unless he decides that he must run his own campaign. If that letter I received from the RNC is any gauge, the RNC is far removed from the voting public with the exception of that 30% that still thinks Bush is doing a good job.

Fix Congress - Lobbyists

Say the word "lobbyists" in just about any group and you get universal agreement that these folks are bad. It conjures an image of money passing from the fat cats to our Congressmen in a dark, smoke filled room. We see record gasoline prices and we all "know" that Exxon is lobbying for more government subsidies in addition to record profits. Our mortgage-backed financial markets are in meltdown and we do know that their lobbyists convinced Congress to reduce regulation of that industry in previous years.

There are lobbyists for any special interest that each of, us personally, support or need. Lobbyists also represent big businesses, foreign interests, and single-issue organizations. All are "special interests" and that phrase also conjures a nasty image, unless the named special interest is your own special interest.

There are many problems with the whole nature of lobbyists and lobbying, but the most unforgiving problem is the same as earmarking the federal budget - and that's secrecy. The most blatant example of such secrecy was early in the Bush Administration when Cheney met with energy executives to set America's energy and environment policies. What went on in that meeting remains secret these years later.

McCain Rids His Staff of Lobbyists

I doubt there is any candidate who has a record of trying to improve government ethics through campaign finance and lobbying reforms than John McCain. Yet, even McCain has lobbying problems. The New York Times, "McCain Finds a Thorny Path in Ethics Effort," has a good rundown on the fact that McCain has removed a number of his staff because they were lobbyists. I don't know the number but the Monday Houston Chronicle's "Texan's lobbying success becomes liability for McCain" notes Tom Loeffler was the fifth to leave.

The NYT article notes that the leaving staff members lobbied for customers including foreign governments, foreign companies, and rich foreigners; and large US corporations. The punch line comes early in the article but it is a good one. The responsibility for removing these lobbyists from McCain's staff falls on Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, and Davis is himself a prominent lobbyist.

Davis did take leave from his lobby firm two years ago. I don't think that taking leave is not the same as quitting. His company has started specializing in the interests of foreign politicians and businessmen.

Most of these lobbyists/campaign staff members are friends of McCain. The NYT gives an indication of why this is so. The entire lobbying industry cycles between campaign work in the even numbered years and lobbying in the odd years. To me, this is an indicator of just how entwined are the Congress and lobbyist.

I saw one article indicating that Obama also has lobbyist on his staff, but I doubted its veracity so I won't repeat it. However, I would guess that Obama did have lobbyists on his staff until he decided to make McCain's lobbyists an issue. I assume Clinton has lobbyists since she is probably more of the Beltway establishment than either McCain or Obama.

Lobbying is a Billion Dollar Industry

Lobbying is pervasive. We all know it exists, but that's about all we know. Ask any Congressman if his or her vote is ever affected by lobbyists and you'll get a strong no with a pained look that you could even suggest such a thing. If that were so, then lobbying must be a dumb industry that spends billions of dollars ($2.8 billion in 2008) but gets no results.

Lobbying is successful. This chart from the Center for Responsive Politics shows how this industry continues to grow.

Of course lobbying affects how our Congressmen vote. That relationship is incestuous and involves what's called the revolving door wherein people move back and forth between the work of Congress and the work of lobbying. Members of Congress who either lose or give up their seats often move over to lobbying to make use of all their personal contacts in Congress, and to get a piece of that billion dollar industry.

While it is easy to point to specific lobbyists and the Congressmen they lobbied, it is difficult to get your hands around the whole lobbying industry. The Center for Responsive Politics' web site, Open Secrets, gives about the best overall picture I could find. Go to their Industries tab. This list shows the top industries' contributions to each political party and to the current Presidential candidates (Ignore the different colors. I clipped the table as an image and the colors change are for links that I visited.).

I wouldn't put too much stock in the relative amounts given to each political party since lobbying is an opportunistic endeavor. Lobbyists have agendas and they will support whichever party, candidate, or elected official that will further their agendas. There has recently been a shift in lobby monies to Democrats which shows how they see coming power shifts.

One can guess at the agendas behind the above list. Lawyers (mostly trial lawyers) would like to stop any legislation that limits liability of big business; securities and investment firms would oppose any regulation of the mortgage industry; health professionals, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and hospital industries will want their say in any effort to fix Medicare or provide national health care; and electric utilities and oil and gas industries can effectively block environmental legislation and keep subsidies to oil companies flowing.

Where's the Smoking Gun?

But in all of the above, I find no smoking gun. That some industries spend lots of money lobbying our leaders is interesting but it is not even circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing. I had to look elsewhere.

Traditionally, "legal" monies get to Congress and candidates by soft money, individual contributors, and PACs. In 2002, soft money was banned which leaves money from individuals and PACs. There is not much to say about individual donors; you get the same lack of hard data as in the above case.

We all hear about the more notorious PACS such as those single issue PACs that oppose gay rights and abortion and purportedly support family values. There are also PACs that follow an extreme right or left political agenda. But none of these appear in the list of top PAC monies .

As in the list of top lobbying industries, the Republicans are not well represented. That's another indication that the influence industry sees the Democrats as the current winners. In this case, however, we see that the list is also filled with PACs that have traditionally favored Democrats.

Half of the PACs in this top 20 list are labor unions or worker organizations. Only three are single corporations: AT&T, UPS, and AFLAC. This list doesn't strike me as one of nefarious special interests. Labor unions and workers associations certainly represent a special interest but even that is an interest of very large groups of mostly average John and Jane Does.

Given that lobbying really is a problem, where is the smoking gun? Part of the problem is defining the problem. All of the data at OpenSecrets depends on disclosure via Senate rules. The disclosure is not all-encompassing nor is it perfect. Some data is simply not reported.

Peddlers of Influence and Other Friends

More importantly, I believe, the influence industry may not depend so much on money as we might think. Note that in the current case of John McCain's removing lobbyist from his campaign staff, most of these lobbyists were personal friends of McCain. Such friendship is, I believe, the key to effective influence peddling. How does this begin?

First, Congressmen collect friends sometimes just like ordinary citizens do, but mostly they collect friends more like business leaders collect business friends and contacts for networking. The friends usually have similar ideas about running the country, And they can be helpful in a variety of ways. In return, the Congressman can often help the friends.

There is also the revolving door process noted above. A typical case is one wherein a young staffer performs well for a Congressman. The Congressman contacts a friend and gets the staffer a good job in private industry, usually in an industry of interest to the Congressman. A few years later, the staffer leaves his industry job for another staff position, possibly with the same Congressman, maybe another but certainly to a higher staff position. The staffer now has several valuable friends/contacts in both Congress and industry. Then, a few good performance later years, the staffer returns to industry, probably in a very high position. And so the cycle continues upward. Eventually the staffer ends up as a corporate officer, or maybe a Cabinet position, or similar. The Congressman now has many high-level contacts in industry and has a good job waiting for the time he leaves Congress.

The process is not inherently incestuous or evil, but it certainly provides plenty of opportunity for influencing the votes of our Congressmen. But we don't know and that is our problem that Congress must fix. Transparency is the term most often used as the opposite of secrecy. That's good. I'll use it.

Since this post has become quite long, I'll leave the possible solutions to another post.

Fix Congress - Earmarks

Earmarks are those things Congressmen do to the Federal Budget to send some special money to some special people. There is nothing inherently wrong in the earmark concept. Senators and Representatives are supposed to represent their constituents and that includes carving out a part of the budget for the folks back home. But earmarks are the source of two problems. First, earmarks too often add to the budget, rather than carve out a part of it. Second, the receivers of earmarks may not be the folks back home, but may be cronies, bribers, and other kinds of special friends.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

If I remember correctly, earmarking comes from England and we carried it to the colonies. It involves slitting or otherwise cutting the ears of livestock to show ownership. The purpose is to identify the livestock's owner. In Congress, an earmark identifies the recipients, not the author, until 2007 when the Senate passed the S. 1: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 and the House adopted H. Res. 6: Ethics Reform resolution. S. 1 was also approved by the House and signed by the President, so it is now law. The House did not enact H.Res. 6 but did vote to use the new rules for earmark transparency.

Earmark Watch (see image at right, from Earmark Watch home page) is a tremendously useful site that lets you track the status of many bills in Congress (they are aiming for all bills). While their aim was to track earmarks, the site provides a wealth of info on many things dealing with transparency in government. Earmark Watch gives a summary of S. 1, Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. This act covers several areas where more transparency is needed. For earmarks, the Act:

"Requires that Senators who submit earmark requests on a bill or committee report be identified as the sponsor of their requests on a publicly accessible congressional website at least 48 hours before the item comes to a vote [Tile V (Sec. 521)]."

Earmark, noun; a distinguishing mark; or identification; ...

So, if earmarks are now transparent, why am I discussing it? Because transparency has not been achieved and, as you might guess, some Congressmen have found ways around S. 1. Part of the problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of earmarks.

Earmark Watch gives the following:

"For the purposes of Earmark Watch, earmarks are those spending provisions in appropriations bills that House Resolution 6 and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 require House members and Senators, respectively, to disclose. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 uses the euphemism "congressionally directed spending" for earmarks, which it defines as

a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process...

"But bear in mind that there is no single agreed upon definition of earmarks. The Office of Management and Budget defines them here as, in part,

funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

"However, the House Report to the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill notes that

Earmarking or directed spending of Federal dollars does not begin with Congress. It begins with the Executive Branch. For example, the list included above lists 92 specific land acquisition or construction projects which have been submitted by the Administration. The Administration, in selecting these projects, goes through a process that is the functional equivalent of earmarking."

Ok, the definition of an earmark is a problem, but why can't Congress, using S. 1, include those Administration earmarks and identify the source as the White House. They could even identify the department. They could also report, even after the fact, whether the money was awarded "other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process."

Are earmarks really a problem? To answer, let's get into a bit of media flim-flamery.

2007 Federal Budget Contains 11,780 Earmarks

Search "earmarks" in Wikipedia and you get the following:

"Congress' year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains nearly 10,000 Congressional earmarks worth $10.4 billion, according to a comprehensive database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.[4] In addition, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, passed earlier in the year, contains nearly 2,200 earmarks worth $7.9 billion. The total Congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion. This is a 23% cut in earmarks from the high in FY 2005, but falls well short of the 50% reduction House leadership set as its goal earlier in the year.[5]

Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08 earmarks representing $13.2 billion as "Pork Projects", significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years: 13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963 projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006."

Wow, 11,780 earmarks in the 2007 budget and for a whopping $18.3 billion! That would be sound bite reporting. Hold on a minute.

In my last Navy tour, I was in Washington, DC, and was responsible for a small portion of the Navy's budget. I lived the budget cycle and even had to participate at Congressional subcommittee budget hearings. My miniscule part of the budget had at least 200 items and I can picture the Navy's total budget request running into several tens of thousand items. Now expand that to all the government departments and offices and the total items clearly comes to several million items. The draft budget is delivered to Congress in many volumes carried, no doubt, by forklifts.

John McCain is Outraged

Are 11,780 earmarks really a significant number? Not really, but John McCain was outraged by uncontrolled earmarks during his major economics speech back in April. Robert Borosage at the Huffington Post in the article, "McCainomics: A Double Dose of the Same Poison" has some good points (but I don't agree with all of his article).

Borosage makes the following point:

"First, foremost and repeatedly, he (McCain) is outraged by earmarked spending by the Congress which he vows to veto if president. This is cute, but a joke. Earmarks total less than $15 billion a year in a $2.7 trillion budget. Erasing them all will make utterly no difference in our economic posture."

I think the latest figure is more like $18 billion but we're still only talking about 6/10ths of 1%. So I ask, "Why am I still talking about earmarks?"

Hypothetical Earmarks

I am still talking about earmarks because $18 billion is still a big piece of change in anyone's language.

Let's say that all the Congressmen shared the $18 billion equally. Divide $18 billion by 535 and you get about $ 33 million each. Now let's say that we trust most Congressmen and maybe 75% goes to good causes for the folks back home. Some earmarks sneak by and we don't know which Member of Congress sneaked them into the budget, the language probably notes a worthy cause but the money is to go to a specified contractor (remember, this is hypothetical).

Why specify a contractor? Assuming we even knew about the earmark, we don't know why but we would be suspicious. So would an honest Congressmen. I don't know if 25% is a good figure for suspicious earmarks; it might be 10%. If it's 25%, then each portion comes to $8 million; if 10%, it's $3 million available to each our equally sharing Congressmen for their suspicious purposes.

But let the statistic keep rolling. About 62% of the budgets goes to entitlement programs and the federal debt. There isn't much change for shenanigans in those items. That leaves 38%, or about $1 billion susceptible to suspicious earmarks. The $18 billion in earmarks now comprises closer to 2% of the budget susceptible to earmarks. Increase all the above estimates accordingly.

from "Introduction to the Federal Budget Process"

Suspicious Purposes

The suspicious purpose could be simply going to a good contractor who deserves to the contract because he has the right skills - maybe ok, but we probably don't know. That contractor might also be owned by a relative of the Congressman - not good. That contractor might also be getting a payoff for campaign favors - definitely not good. Or it might simply be a payoff for a bribe - downright crooked.

My point is that hidden earmarks may constitute an awful lot of money when we discuss it in average human terms. I am not against earmarks, but I do believe all earmarks should be visible to the public and, especially, we should know the authoring Congressman. In other words, let's really earmark the earmarks.

This has been just a summary of the earmark subject. It gets really complicated in the details. So what should be done?

Mark the Earmark

First, get an agreed upon definition of earmarks and make that definition an Act of Congress, signed by the Senate, the House, and signed by the President (without a signing statement). A good place to start is the "OMB Guidance to Agencies on Definition of Earmarks." OMB should provide the guidance, but Congress must make it law.

After that, we probably need another, better Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 200x. What that should contain depends on whom you ask. Larry Lessig, professor of law at Stanford and once aspired to be a member of Congress, has taken a puritanical approach of abolishing all earmarks and no money from PACs. He seems to be gathering a following among voters, at least one state legislature, and some US Congressmen of both Parties. You can read about Lessig at "Fix Congress First" at the Huffington Post, and "Larry Lessig: Time to reject corporate influence on Washington" on CNET News. Or you can visit his site, Change Congress and sign up as a supporter, see which Congressmen have recently signed up, or find how much or your local Member is getting from PACs.

I'm not fond of completely doing away with all earmarks, but I wouldn't oppose it if Congress takes the step. If McCain is elected, this is what he says he will do.

The public is aware of earmarks and wants solutions. Some Congressmen are for doing away with earmarks, more are for making earmarks completely visible. The next President and Congress will feel the pressure and have an opportunity to fix the problem. The only thing that might prevent a solution are those who benefit from the $18 billion in earmarks.

Former Politician Adopts Truth

Chuck Robb, former US Senator, former Governor of Virginia, and now national security expert gave a talk yesterday to a group of business and academic leaders in Southside Virginia. His talk was refreshingly honest in that it covered our greatest threat (nuclear Iran) and our greatest problem in responding to today's threats (not enough ground troops).

I say his talk was "refreshing" mostly because I find little "refreshing" honesty in the campaigns of our three Oval Office seekers, but then, Robb is a former politician.

cCain also talked yesterday and said we will win in Iraq by 2013. That's good. I want to  win and I like having a date. But what will we have won? Why are we there? What is our national security priority that makes us want to win and be there in 2013?

In short, what is the national security platform for McCain and the Republican Party? Where do you want to take this country? What are our goals for the world and why should we Americans want those goals? "To make the world safe for democracy," "to bring freedom to freedom loving people" are slogans, not answers.

I believe we should be in Iraq in 2013 and longer if necessary and I have reasons that may or not be the same as yours, but I am not running for President. Before you accuse me of siding with one or more Democrats, I ask similar questions of Clinton and Obama. Clinton leans to keeping troops in Iraq but with some kind of undefined timetable. Obama favors a rapid timetable to do something undefined at the end of that timetable. Neither has defined the role of the US in Iraq or the Middle East. Since our presence in the Middle East seems unavoidable, I'd like the next President to define our purposes and goals.

On the domestic side, McCain favors flat tax and more tax cuts, the first of which will never pass Congress and the second is just more voter candy like the gas tax holiday. Clinton returns to some kind of national health care but seems to have no other plans for the economy. Obama wants us to all work together to do what?

What Robb Said

ere's the gist of Chuck Robb's talk. Iran is developing nuclear weapons and would probably give those weapons to terrorists. This will be at the top of the next President's inbox and a solution can't wait. America's military ground force is stretched too thin, "almost to the breaking point." America is in a difficult economic position with having to increase its national security force and also paying for two financially crippling wars.

When asked if the political process was capable of electing a leader empowered to solve these problems, Robb answered, "Empowered, yes. Political will, no." (I would have given a reference web page but this report was in a local newspaper and I could not find a web news article reporting on the talk.)

We haven't heard much from Robb since 2004, his last year as Senator. Since then he has served as co-chair for the Iraq Intelligence Committee, as a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Iraq Study Group.

'm still working of the Fix Congress theme and plan on discussing earmarks next. Throughout this research, I am struck by the sheer complexity of the issues and the difficulty of presenting my findings in a brief, coherent post. The issues confronting America are, indeed, complex and the time for corrections in running out. The peace dividend after the Cold War came and went in a flash, terrorism continues to threaten us, our national debt increases as foreigners (with no personal ties to America) increasingly buy our debt, health care is near breakdown for most people, entitlement programs are running out of time for a fix, and our military is not prepared to defend America against virtually any kind of new threat.

And with all this, we have Presidential candidates who discuss none of these issues in any meaningful way. Perhaps part of the problem is the media that forces candidates to talk about old sermons of former pastors and a host of other trivial subjects that in no way resemble the issues facing this nation.

Could it also be that Americans do not want to hear or talk about the important issues?

30% Believe Bush is Doing a Good Job

resident Bush has an approval rating of around 30%, depending of the time of day and the barometric pressure. Since elections in most democratic countries are won by little over 50%, the low 30% approval is significant. However, I am struck by the fact that about one out of three people think Bush has done a good job.

Most of us are well beyond the point of denying that the Bush Administration either lied to or misled America on everything from the terrorist -Iraq connection and Iraq's WMD, to torture, and to the nature of spying on America. We really do have the facts on the lies or misdirection from Bush, Rove, and Cheney. I must assume that those who still believe in Bush do not believe any of these facts.

  am not talking about why Bush and his team did it. There are many reasonable conjectures on that subject. And I am not talking about why these Bush supporters deny the facts. There are many conjectures on that too.

I am talking about 30% of the population that is not susceptible to facts. Given that, am I hoping for the impossible that politicians might start campaigning on truth? If politicians were to present their plans for America, will the media destroy them with sound bite "journalism" directed to that 30% who do vote with passion.

If the last is true, then it will be because enough Americans prefer sound bites to complicated plans. It would be because too many Americans prefer simple, warm fuzzies to real plans.

ou tell me. Is our future to be a series of national disasters brought on by simplistic (and usually wrong) promises? Are we to worry more about the pastor Wrights and Hagees than about the need to increase our national security? Are we to worry more about Clinton's popularity with us old farts and Obama's lack of support from supposedly racially motivated (hint, hint) West Virginians than our financial futures? I'm afraid that, for the 30%, it's probably true.

I assume that most of you who read this post understand more of the complexities facing this nation. You understand that the media-driven news is not news. There are reporters and journalist who do try to cover the important issues. I believe that number actually increasing, but they are moving to the Internet where media corporations cannot control them. Newspapers, my newspaper in particular, are less and less a source of news. But now and then you find and interesting article like the one on Chuck Robb.

RNC Wants My Opinions

If you've never been a Republican, you are missing out on some depressing humor that comes in letters from the Republican National Committee. I get at least one such letter in the months before each election cycle. This time, I received three letters so the RNC must be in some sort of panic. The last letter was the official "Republican Party Census Document." Yep, that's the title and they want me to tell them about my most important issues for the coming elections.

Cat in Japan, 12x18, pastel

received a similar (no - make that almost identical) census before the 2006 elections. I answered the questions and added a comment to the effect, "I will not vote Republican again until the Party returns to its roots of integrity and fiscal responsibility." As you might suspect, I didn't get a response, but that might be because I didn't send any money.

By the way, I also receive letters from the NRA. They say I'm not paid up and they will terminate me. Since I've never been a member of the NRA, termination is kind of scary. I own handguns and have had other guns. The Constitution, not the NRA, protects that right. Still, I wish the NRA would clarify how they intend to terminate me.

ut this post is for you folks who don't get the wonderful RNC Census. Let me give you some their questions, the ones I really like. My comments in italics:

• Should we make our fight against the Democrats' massive tax hikes a central part of the 2008 campaign?
• What tax hikes? No Democrat, no candidate of any party, has proposed tax hikes. However, any fixes to Medicare, health care or the like will require more taxes now, or like we usually do, push the debt on to our grandchildren. Maybe more importantly, we need to increase our military budget if we are to fight terrorism AND defend against other threats. Has the RNC mentioned a Republican massive tax hike to defend America?
• President Bush's successful income and capital gains tax cuts are set to expire -- should they be made permanent?
• No. The growing disparity between middle America and Bush's rich should leave no one doubting that this White House has been pro-wealthy and pro-business. Even Reagan realized that tax cuts work only if the are timed correctly and are temporary. Bush's tax cuts are certainly successful - for the very wealthy.
• Should Republicans fight for a balanced budget?
• Yes, dammit. When will you start?
• Should Republicans in Congress oppose the new, wasteful government spending programs proposed by the Democrats and their leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
• Yes. But what if the new programs are what America needs, are not wasteful, and are proposed by Pelosi and Reid. Will you still fight them ornery Democrats?
• Do you agree that our top military priority should be fighting terrorists?
• That depends. Fighting terrorists that threaten the US has not been a priority since 2003. In the meantime we've hurt our military so much that we have little reserve to defend against another war of any kind. With no other major threats at this time, I'd vote for fighting terrorist as the top priority, so, when do we start? At least, let's try not to make more terrorists than we started with.
• Should Republicans fight Democrat efforts to impose Clinton-era cuts in the Pentagon's budget?
• Yes, although no Democrat has proposed such cuts. While you are at it, maybe you could also vote to fully fund the VA, start taking care of our vets from all wars to the present, and stop proposing cuts in the medical care promised to us retired military.

This is just a sampling. The questions read like a bad joke but I think these folks at the RNC are serious. Note the inflammatory, but meaningless, sound-bite phrases:

• Democrats' massive tax hikes
• new, wasteful government spending programs proposed by the Democrats
• Clinton-era cuts in the Pentagon's budget

There were worse phrases, but you get the idea. I don't know which angers me most - those meaningless word images or the selection of equally meaningless questions. Democrats are evil and Republicans are the only ones who man the ramparts against such despicable evildoers. By November, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats didn't become part of the Axis of Evil.

t just makes me sad that my once proud Republicans have sunk so low. It used to be a party that built a platform on reason (yeah, somewhat elitist). This letter/census is pure hate mail geared to emotion only. A close relative said, "Well, the Democrats did it first." Well, that's true but I don't remember it stooping to such a level that insulted the intelligence of voters.

Anyway, I don't really care what the Democrats did or do. I'm not very interested in that Party; the only values I share with that Party are some of social values and a concern for the non-rich. I am concerned with the Republican Party and would like it move away from the radical right and present a reasoned and thoughtful platform.

I'm sure the RNC letter was intended for the party faithful and not to me. Sorry I opened someone else's mail, but it was addressed to me. At least the RNC hasn't threatened to "terminate" me - yet.

Congressional Problems Are Not New

The December 1984 Atlantic Monthly had an article by Gregg Easterbrook titled, "What's Wrong with Congress." With a title like that, I had to take a look and I recommend it since not much has changed since then. However, the article was written at a time when readers had a much longer attention span, so be prepared for a very long read.

Since the article covers so much territory, I'll summarize the points that grabbed me. Easterbrook relates the current (1984) problems to the removal of the seniority system a decade earlier. Until the mid 70s, senior senators and representatives controlled just about everything that happened in Congress. Other members could gain seniority only when the seniors retired or died, and they knew that they had to follow the seniors' wishes or lose out.

Many of the senior members of Congress were from the South, mostly Dixiecrats. Civil rights was the dominant issue and the public demanded progress on this and other issues. Congress was under a lot of pressure to change the way it conducted business and they decided to remove the seniority system.

emoval of the seniority system was good because it made Congress more representative of America's diverse regions. But it was bad because it left no one in charge and it caused a proliferation of committees and subcommittees.

When the seniority system was in effect, the work of Congress flowed smoothly and on time, even if certain regions of America lost out on funding because they didn't have a senior member of Congress. Without the seniority system, the work of Congress slowed and the status of any bill or act became impossible to predict.

Removal of the seniority system was also bad because it happened about the same time that television news discovered the sound bite. Television news was never good at reporting on complicated issues or proceedings. Since Congress is always dealing with complicated issues and must conduct long and boring proceedings or hearings, Congress and TV news were never a good match.

However, the newly freed Representatives and Senators were free to talk and promote themselves to their constituents back home. TV reporters and Members of Congress discovered the sound bite. It was a marriage made in heaven for the participants. TV could pack more material, that looked and sound like news. Members of Congress could get exposure without ever exposing their thought processes to public review.

Here are some of Easterbrook's examples Congressional troubles, and my comments and my titles:

Confusion Abounds

"Recently Congress voted for a $749 billion package of tax cuts, and only a few months later was locked in debate over a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. The House voted in favor of Ronald Reagan's plan to almost double the number of nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal, and not long after voted in favor of the nuclear freeze."

"...many spending bills have not been completed until months after the spending they supposedly control has begun. ... and these often contain "unprinted amendments" whose contents congressmen have never had an opportunity to read."

Morris Udall said, "The end of the seniority system; the arabesque budget "process" and other time-consuming new additions like the War Powers Act; the transformation from party loyalty to political-action-committee (PAC) loyalty; the increased emphasis on media campaigning; the vogue of running against Washington and yet being a member of the Washington establishment; the development of ideological anti-campaigns; a dramatic increase in congressional-subcommittee power and staff size, and a parallel increase in the scope and intensity of lobbying--all are creations of the past fifteen years. Some have served to make the nation's legislature more democratic and to improve its contact with the public. Others have made congressmen more frantic and timorous. But every change has in some respect caused Congress to become more difficult to run. Right now there isn't anyone in charge, and there may never be again."

Easterbrook evaluates: "More than any other factor, the deregulation of subcommittees has increased Congress's workload and decreased its cohesion."

e still have much of this with us today. I find it absurd that Congress can propose tax cuts and then pretend to vote for a balanced budget. The key element of this dishonesty is to pass "temporary" resolutions that produce an budget deficit and increases the allowed debt. These resolutions are rarely temporary.

Negative Campaigning and Workloads

"Since low attendance (on the floor of Congress) has an instant negative connotation, one of the easiest ways for a challenger to attack an incumbent congressman is to hammer at a "bad attendance record" on floor votes--a tactic that avoids the issue of whether the congressman might have made more meaningful use of his time."

"Because of the regularity with which redundant floor votes occur, Congress "never finishes anything, never arrives at a decision," according to Senator Ted Stevens, of Alaska. "Always they are just preliminary decisions that will be addressed again later anyway. It's totally confusing to the public, and even to ourselves."

"The shift. in campaign financing toward direct mail and PACS has an obverse effect that is often overlooked: the shift away from political-party structures as a source of funds.... "Today, if you can't sell an issue in twenty seconds, you can't use it," Representative Synar says. "It only takes twenty seconds to say 'Your congressman is against prayer.' It takes me five minutes to explain why that's wrong. But television won't give me five minutes."

his raises the issue of whether more useful work is done on the floor or in committee. We don't know and perhaps the members of Congress don't know. But it does illustrate that most Congressmen have to spend otherwise useful time in covering their backsides.

Budget Woes

Much of Easterbrook's article deals with the budget. That's proper since the budget is a prime Constitutional role for Congress. Here are some examples and thoughts about the budget process:

"Before 1974 the House and Senate each had three kinds of committees involved with the budget: authorizing, appropriating, and revenue. The authorizing committees, like Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, and Interior, are the most familiar; they "authorize" federal activity by writing legislation in their subject areas. But though they can start or end programs, they cannot approve expenditures--only the two appropriating committees can do that. Since the amount spent on a program usually determines that program's effect on policy, the potential for overlapping and disputation is boundless. Neither authorizing nor appropriating committees, meanwhile, have the power to raise the money that backs up the checks--only the Finance Committee, in the Senate, and the Ways and Means Committee, in the House, do. Because of this separation it became all too easy for authorizing and appropriating committees to ignore the fiscal consequences of their actions--getting the money was somebody's else's job--and for the revenue committees, in turn, to demand that the other fellow crack down on spending." (Emphasis is mine.)

"The budget process was intended to bring together the questions of how much to spend, how to spend it, and where the funds would come from with a single resolution that would both guide Congress and impose a series of spending ceilings to control the deficit. ...Ideally this would have been accomplished through some merging of the authorizing, appropriating, and revenue committees. But merger would have required that at least two powerful chairmen, plus many subcommittee chairmen, surrender their posts. So an entirely new procedural tier, the budget committees, complete with two important new chairmanships, was set on top."

"Because of the regularity with which redundant floor votes occur, Congress "never finishes anything, never arrives at a decision," according to Senator Ted Stevens, of Alaska. "Always they are just preliminary decisions that will be addressed again later anyway. It's totally confusing to the public, and even to ourselves.""

"Often in recent years the United States has technically not had a budget at all but rather has operated under a "continuing resolution" that keeps the money flowing but avoids an official legislative confrontation over the deficit. Continuing resolutions are popular, in part because they are one of the mechanisms that allow congressmen to seem to be voting for both sides at once: they can vote No on the budget itself ("I'm opposed to these deficits") and vote Yes for individual programs on the continuing resolution ("I brought increased federal spending to this district"). Similarly, the frequent votes to raise the federal debt ceiling are technically "temporary" legislation, so that congressmen can claim that each vote was merely for an emergency stopgap, not an endorsement of the debt itself."

"In recent years there also has been an increase in the use of supplemental appropriations bills, which are in effect end runs around the stagnated budget process."

"A noncontroversial philanthropic bill--who could be against food for drought victims and summer jobs for youth?--was ideal as a carrier of baggage. Within ten days the Senate had attached no fewer than thirty-five more riders to the bill."

Summary

think this article is a good introduction and summary of why we never get a balanced budget, why it takes so long to settle on any kind of budget, and how the confusion allows unnamed members to tack on earmarks and supplementals that drive the budget into red. Clearly Congress needs to change their budget procedures.

The main points are:

• The budget process is unworkable
• budget approved after expenditures begin
• Neither Members of Congress or the voter have any idea of where any part of the budget stands at any time
• The budget process allows Members of Congress to evade responsibility
• Authors of additions to the budget not often identifiable
• Too many committees and subcommittees. They overlap and allow a Member of Congress to increase spending in one committee and then claim fiscal responsibility in another committee
• The budget process does not promote a balanced budget, nor does it facilitate reducing the deficit.